Whose opinion? (was Re: anonymous mail)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Matthew B Landry writes:

>         On the subject of whether personal postings should be considered
> as representing the company, I should point out that:
>
> 1:      NSF and several regional nets have acceptable use policies which
>         do not permit commercial use.
> 2:      Messages posted by the company (or by someone who is assumed to
>         represent the company) would be in violation of these policies if the
>         messages crossed the applicable networks.

I don't think a description of a policy is at all clearly "commercial use".
Advertising, and use of net resources in the course of doing business seem
to be commercial use - but a discussion with outside folks about policies
or conditions doesn't seem to be commercial use. To suggest that net traffic
originating at a site with a .com domain name is commercial seems to
over-reach.

> 3:      There is no way to prevent a specific message over usenet from crossing
>         a specific network.
> 4:      The owner of a network site (the company) is assumed to be responsible
>         for any "unacceptable use" traffic that comes from the site.

I don't think I buy this one, either. If I can't control traffic (see #3)
how is it reasonable to say that I am responsible for it (#4)?

> 5:      This liability would leave the company open to having its net feed
>         cut off for such unacceptable use.

This assumes that the net feed comes from a provider which restricts
commercial use. Some providers (like Alternet) welcome commercial use.

>         It is therefore in the best interests of any corporation with
> Internet/Usenet access to _assume_ that messages posted by its employees
> are not company business.

It is probably convenient for policymakers to make this assumption. It is,
however, perhaps naiive. If I see a posting from Jim Bizdos, I *do* assume
that he is speaking for RSADSI/PKP, unless he makes efforts to disclaim such
attribution. Ditto for other folks who I know or suspect hold positions of
power or influence with other institutions. I suspect other folks on the net
react similarly to posts (apparently) coming from people who may have some
impact on corporate/institutional policy/behavior. I think it's probably
best to assume that people *will* associate what people post from a site's
name with that site, especially absent disclaimers to the contrary.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3

iQCVAgUBLEN3H33YhjZY3fMNAQHMAQP/VJX86pXxyZqXaEHsWIeH1cLnjsPW/9cR
gfNdp/3KRwZBwLAR/BbqPlfZUnY6VHJKtbJUHVDSMAOcgRZ9E9+3L6ghBFX3J4lO
aKS9SnAsEDOSY5PMqAF7z9YShP1FqVuRRq7XKMF6KjIfH/+rIsjj5AR0kSa5BB6p
kbBW/jis1U0=
=iuOy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Greg Broiles                            greg@goldenbear.com
Golden Bear Computer Consulting         +1 503 465 0325
Box 12005 Eugene OR 97440               BBS: +1 503 687 7764

> >         It is therefore in the best interests of any corporation with
> > Internet/Usenet access to _assume_ that messages posted by its employees
> > are not company business.

Someone wrote this, sorry the attribution got cut off.

Anyone who thinks that ANYONE on usenet speaks for their company, unless
explicitly stated, should have their damned head examined.  It was a clear
ploy to attempt to get the poor guy fired by someone who disagreed with his
opinion and decided to get nasty about it.  What an asshole.  Unfortunately,
it worked.

I think Microsoft ought be boycotted for this outrageous crap.  IMO.
I also think the guy that complained to Microsoft ought to have his head
examined ... AFTER his mailbox grows a couple hundred megs or so from
outraged people sending him mail expressing THEIR opinion.
-- 
Ed Carp				erc@wetware.com			510/659-9560
   For anonymous mailers -->   anonymus+5300@charcoal.com
"Disagreements are not meant to be challenges.  They are just a different
 reality."  -- Risa D'Angeles